Mrs May's lacklustre performance as PM is good for equality. No longer will the more ardent feminists be able to argue that the world would be better if women were in charge - for it turns out women are just as capable of incompetence as men!
we have to remind ourselves there was never a majority, never will be a majority, and was certainly no majority at the European referendum last year, for impoverishing ourselves in pursuit of national self-respect. You know very well that it was fear of such an eventuality that you needed to dispel during your Leave campaign. Hence that ‘£350 million for the NHS’ you always knew was offside but dared not repudiate. You know you could not have won without such reassurances.
That reassurance has been shattered.
Your other alternative is bolder. Cheat Parliament of its chance to vote down a deal by never reaching one. Keep your hostage in Downing Street and storm on towards the cliff edge in which we tumble out of the EU without agreement. Persuade public opinion that Brussels bullies brought us to this breakdown, negotiation is now impossible, and Britain must walk away — and damn the consequences.
Damning the consequences is all that’s open to you now. Double or quits: a reckless strategy that could destroy the Conservative party and land you in the rogues’ gallery of history, but it’s your only hope. You speak for millions, but unfortunately not tens of millions. Good luck Charles; good luck, James F and James D; good luck Freddy, Rod, Dominic, Douglas. The way things are going it’s double or quits for all of you. We who are not about to die, salute you.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. Those who celebrate mass immigration and how London's economy prospers on the back of it, look away now
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
Well Vince Cable is dead right. Immigration, fuelled by campaigns that pandered to xenophobia, was what won it for Leave. Oddly it's now Leavers who try to evade the democratic responsibility of implementing Brexit in accordance with the way in which the victory was secured. It's pretty obvious that they're ashamed of what they colluded with.
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calling everyone a xenophobe and ignored the consequences of uncontrolled immigrtion on housing, wages, public services and social cohesion. And as we have seen at the more recent setpieces of polling voters are more concerned with the hardships of life than name calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
Perhaps you lost because you couldn't make a convincing case for the EU.
Perhaps you haven't tried to understand my position.
"What you're telling me is I have a choice between a bad deal and no deal - I'd prefer a choice between a bad deal and a chance to go back and get a better deal. "
How long does this iteration go on for? If the EU want to play hard ball because of internal politics, they will.
By choosing Juncker and Barnier, they are trying that.
I agree with Mr Royale, your post he selected was very reasonable. But we have to live with the art of the possible.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. Those who celebrate mass immigration and how London's economy prospers on the back of it, look away now
This is going to be a real problem for the Government and indeed all parties. A big part of the LEAVE campaign was about "taking back control" and an integral part of that was giving our Government the right to decide who should be able to come and reside in this country.
The subtext to that was clearly that the British Government, on the day we left the EU, would instate a new immigration policy making the citizens of the EU subject to the same restrictions as citizens from the US and other countries.
To me, that's fair, a single transparent and fair migration policy allowing us to bring in the people we need either with the skills or with the ability to learn from our educational system. That's what migration should be about - giving the genuine refugee a chance to find a place of safety, bringing in the skill sets we need and giving an opportunity to learn from us and take the skills back to their own countries to improve the lot of their peoples.
The social and community effects of the open door Single Market migration policy are not the same everywhere but in some areas have been considerable and understandably there are those who want to see that flow reduced or even stopped entirely (and indeed reversed).
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
They aimed at the 48% and their main policy is ... we'll have another referendum because we didn't like the result last time, which begs the question ... what then? In 18 months time, and if they succeed, we'll go back on bended knees and accept any deal that Barmier and Juncker want. Is that what the 48% want?
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
The argument for having another referendum is NOT about trying to cheat anyone out of anything. It is about applying proper scrutiny to whatever deal Messrs May, Davis and Fox achieve from the A50 negotiations or should we just "trust Theresa" and not worry our pretty little heads about the economic future of the country or have a say in it ?
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
One of the many tragedies of politics is that there rarely seems to be any reward for being proved right.
So the LibDems need more than Brexit. Their problem is that the public desires change at a time when, to them at least, the LDs don't appear to be offering any.
Nostalgia is a powerful force, and soon enough there may well be a significant block of voters nostalgic for the last couple of decades.
Brexit has given a massive boost to LD membership*, but these new members often are single issue members rather than over the broader range of policy. Opposition to Brexit becomes too dominant as a factor, and in 18 months becomes obsolete. I don't see Cable having the energy or guile to revive the party on a wider policy platform. He is also particularly tainted by student fees, which are going to grow as an issue by the time of the next election as more and more millenials are sucked into the quicksand of debt.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It's the only thing that has stopped me ripping up my LD membership since 2010.
The LD's should put Brexit to the edge, rather than front and centre of their offer. The priority should be to build a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity. Explain why the national economy is not like a household budget and why the banks want you to think it is. Get the economy working for all, not just a few.
Unfortunately, due to the poisonous experience with the Coalition and in particular the likes of Danny Alexander being closely associated with austerity, this isn't likely to happen.
Anyway, I've become a fan of Richard Murphy. Good blog on this yesterday.
Powerful stuff in Richard Murphy's blog, and I am confident the pendulum is swinging away from austerity and severe neoliberalism (it's just not swinging fast enough!).
But Monksfield, if you have seen the light on this why wouldn't you just vote Labour next time, since their manifesto embodied these principals?
To answer my own question, I can think of two reasons: a) tactical voting (Labour can't win here) or b) lack of confidence in Corbyn as a potential PM. For my own part if the LibDems did as Monksfield suggests and built 'a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity' I would be very likely to vote for them and I think they would capitalise on the inevitable Tory backlash.
I did vote Labour this time, first time ever in a GE, just not quite ready to rip up my LD membership yet. You could say I'm more aligned with progressive politics than any one party.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
Mrs May's lacklustre performance as PM is good for equality. No longer will the more ardent feminists be able to argue that the world would be better if women were in charge - for it turns out women are just as capable of incompetence as men!
By the way, if anyone's bored of the 380th repeat of the Brexit discussion ft people who'll never change their minds or admit they were wrong, #replaceDancewithWankinasong on twitter is more fun
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
They aimed at the 48% and their main policy is ... we'll have another referendum because we didn't like the result last time, which begs the question ... what then? In 18 months time, and if they succeed, we'll go back on bended knees and accept any deal that Barmier and Juncker want. Is that what the 48% want?
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
The argument for having another referendum is NOT about trying to cheat anyone out of anything. It is about applying proper scrutiny to whatever deal Messrs May, Davis and Fox achieve from the A50 negotiations or should we just "trust Theresa" and not worry our pretty little heads about the economic future of the country or have a say in it ?
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
Glad you enjoyed Nolan's pro-Brexit allegory " Dunkirk ". Me too.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
They aimed at the 48% and their main policy is ... we'll have another referendum because we didn't like the result last time, which begs the question ... what then? In 18 months time, and if they succeed, we'll go back on bended knees and accept any deal that Barmier and Juncker want. Is that what the 48% want?
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
The problem the third party always faces is that on most big issues there are two distinctive stances at the extremes, and usually the main parties have positions on (or as close to as is generally acceptable) those sewn up. In the real world of course it is often more sensible to fashion a middle course between the extremes, and the LibDems do have reams of sensible but unmemorable policy on almost everything (and further, having campaigned from the extreme, something close to LibDem policy is often what the main parties end up implementing, once their ideas make contact with the world as it is). But this isn't any good at getting them noticed.
The opportunities for the LibDems tend to come along when both main parties adopt a similar position on an issue, leaving the other side unchampioned (Iraq being the obvious example), or where an issue is emerging or growing in importance and being more nimble they can stake out the ground first (for many years environmentalism was a good example). Brexit looked like an example of the former, that has so far not paid any divided, and should sensibly be broadened into internationalism as someone suggests downthread. Drugs policy is an example of the latter. The trouble with the latter is that adopting positions early rarely appeals to more than a small minority. And, by the time you are proved right, either everyone has forgotten that you were first, or cares more about something else.
Powerful stuff in Richard Murphy's blog, and I am confident the pendulum is swinging away from austerity and severe neoliberalism (it's just not swinging fast enough!).
But Monksfield, if you have seen the light on this why wouldn't you just vote Labour next time, since their manifesto embodied these principals?
To answer my own question, I can think of two reasons: a) tactical voting (Labour can't win here) or b) lack of confidence in Corbyn as a potential PM. For my own part if the LibDems did as Monksfield suggests and built 'a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity' I would be very likely to vote for them and I think they would capitalise on the inevitable Tory backlash.
I did vote Labour this time, first time ever in a GE, just not quite ready to rip up my LD membership yet. You could say I'm more aligned with progressive politics than any one party.
It's possible the Lib Dems may need to lose you to reposition themselves. That's because (possibly) you place anti-austerity and high levels of state welfare higher than internationalism. Labour already occupy that space. The risk for the Lib Dems is they play safe when they need to carve out a distinctive position for themselves.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
I'm happy for wait to get the right deal - it would be too easy to rush out of the EU on the basis of the wrong deal or no deal.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. Those who celebrate mass immigration and how London's economy prospers on the back of it, look away now
One of the many tragedies of politics is that there rarely seems to be any reward for being proved right.
So the LibDems need more than Brexit. Their problem is that the public desires change at a time when, to them at least, the LDs don't appear to be offering any.
Nostalgia is a powerful force, and soon enough there may well be a significant block of voters nostalgic for the last couple of decades.
Brexit has given a massive boost to LD membership*, but these new members often are single issue members rather than over the broader range of policy. Opposition to Brexit becomes too dominant as a factor, and in 18 months becomes obsolete. I don't see Cable having the energy or guile to revive the party on a wider policy platform. He is also particularly tainted by student fees, which are going to grow as an issue by the time of the next election as more and more millenials are sucked into the quicksand of debt.
*The Tories have not published recent membership figures, but were dropping quickly 4 years ago. It is quite possible that both LDs and SNP are near equal in numbers.
Anyway, I've become a fan of Richard Murphy. Good blog on this yesterday.
Although... that Economist article was written way back in those balmy days when austerity was going to wipe the defecit out by 2019. Now that it's a neverending game, the author might be thinking again.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
I'm happy for wait to get the right deal - it would be too easy to rush out of the EU on the basis of the wrong deal or no deal.
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
As a p.s. to my post below, it would be an interesting exercise to look at the party manifestos from twenty or thirty years back and see whose ideas have mostly influenced current day public policy.
Without having done the research, my instinct is that the Tories would mostly win on economic issues (with a few Labour tweaks such as the minimum wage), with the LibDems winning on most social and environmental issues as well as some political stuff like devolution. Labour has come to support much of the social stuff, but much of it still runs counter to the instincts of its supporters and in most cases it was Liberal policy years earlier.
Labour's socialist thinking has influenced actual policy the least over my adult lifetime IMO, despite a fair innings in government, which is why Corbyn is now both so radical and, to some, threatening.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
And the headbangers are still pushing no deal.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
"What you're telling me is I have a choice between a bad deal and no deal - I'd prefer a choice between a bad deal and a chance to go back and get a better deal. "
How long does this iteration go on for? If the EU want to play hard ball because of internal politics, they will.
By choosing Juncker and Barnier, they are trying that.
I agree with Mr Royale, your post he selected was very reasonable. But we have to live with the art of the possible.
Thank you for the kind word and apologies if I was a little aggressive earlier.
As I've said to Roger, I'd rather wait for the right deal than rush out of the EU on the basis of the wrong deal or no deal.
It's more complex than that of course.
Conservative politicians know that sounding "tough" on Europe doesn't do them any harm electorally whether that electorate is the British public or the Conservative parliamentary party. Boris's absurd comments earlier in the week will be meat and drink to the Daily Mail brigade and reminds everyone he is still a contender when May goes.
So we have the superficial bellicosity from all sides but below the surface (I suspect) the officials are getting on rather better. Of course, the EU is disappointed at our departure but it's more sorrow than anger. They'll go on without us but understandably they don't want our exit to be so "easy" as to be a signal. "Ne pas enourager les autres" would be the motto for the EU approach so we will have to take some lumps and we won't get everything we want and that's fine and the more stupid politicians will run around and castigate the EU.
However, both sides know they will still need to co-exist so something will be cobbled together which, like all good agreements, won't please anyone. May (or whoever) will have the problem of keeping the ardent "let's get out of the EU at all costs" brigade along with the " we don't really want to go but we have to" brigade onside as she takes the treaty through the Commons.
At heart, this has been a multi-generational struggle for the souls of both the Conservative and Labour parties - both have had spells of being the EU's biggest fans and biggest detractors and now we have to decide on our future relationship with them and both parties have to decide where they really want to be.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It's the only thing that has stopped me ripping up my LD membership since 2010.
The LD's should put Brexit to the edge, rather than front and centre of their offer. The priority should be to build a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity. Explain why the national economy is not like a household budget and why the banks want you to think it is. Get the economy working for all, not just a few.
Unfortunately, due to the poisonous experience with the Coalition and in particular the likes of Danny Alexander being closely associated with austerity, this isn't likely to happen.
Anyway, I've become a fan of Richard Murphy. Good blog on this yesterday.
Powerful stuff in Richard Murphy's blog, and I am confident the pendulum is swinging away from austerity and severe neoliberalism (it's just not swinging fast enough!).
But Monksfield, if you have seen the light on this why wouldn't you just vote Labour next time, since their manifesto embodied these principals?
To answer my own question, I can think of two reasons: a) tactical voting (Labour can't win here) or b) lack of confidence in Corbyn as a potential PM. For my own part if the LibDems did as Monksfield suggests and built 'a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity' I would be very likely to vote for them and I think they would capitalise on the inevitable Tory backlash.
I did vote Labour this time, first time ever in a GE, just not quite ready to rip up my LD membership yet. You could say I'm more aligned with progressive politics than any one party.
Fair play - I feel the same.
Although we are outnumbered a bit on PB, there is quite a wide spread of opinion, which keeps the site interesting for me. I like being challenged and finding I am not always right about everything (just 99% right )
Has the EU impoverished its poorer parts at the expense of its richer?
I struggle to believe that it is has, with the exception of the economic damage the Euro has wrought on Greece and Cyprus.
Let's look at all the countries that have joined the EU since Britain joined. (With the exception of Austria, Sweden and Finland, these were all poorer than the EU average when the joined.) If you look at GDP per head compared to Germany (which is the richest of the large EU countries), then you see a significant narrowing.
Most poorer countries - Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Czech Republic - have dramatically narrowed the gap with Germany. Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, have not (albeit these are also over much shorter time horizons). On the other hand, the damage done to Greece and Cyprus has been very significant.
If you compare those countries in Eastern Europe that joined the EU with those that did not, then the difference is much more stark. All of the European parts of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that have not joined the EU have gone backwards relative to Germany. Russia itself has done OK, but that's largely due to being a massive commodity exporter. An option that was not available to - say - Estonia.
(Note to add: these numbers include combined East and West Germany, and therefore show German GDP per capita growing quicker than it might. It might be worth rerunning this with France or the Netherlands to get slightly more comparable numbers.)
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
Slave driver Meeks is terribly upset about that horrible Mr Lincoln.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
Powerful stuff in Richard Murphy's blog, and I am confident the pendulum is swinging away from austerity and severe neoliberalism (it's just not swinging fast enough!).
But Monksfield, if you have seen the light on this why wouldn't you just vote Labour next time, since their manifesto embodied these principals?
To answer my own question, I can think of two reasons: a) tactical voting (Labour can't win here) or b) lack of confidence in Corbyn as a potential PM. For my own part if the LibDems did as Monksfield suggests and built 'a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity' I would be very likely to vote for them and I think they would capitalise on the inevitable Tory backlash.
I did vote Labour this time, first time ever in a GE, just not quite ready to rip up my LD membership yet. You could say I'm more aligned with progressive politics than any one party.
It's possible the Lib Dems may need to lose you to reposition themselves. That's because (possibly) you place anti-austerity and high levels of state welfare higher than internationalism. Labour already occupy that space. The risk for the Lib Dems is they play safe when they need to carve out a distinctive position for themselves.
Given that both Labour and Tory are like Schrodingers Cat at the moment, it's hard to see what's left for the Lib Dems. The problem is that FPTP has levered us into a system where politicians see it as more profitable to remain in their existing parties, notwithstanding that they're locked in a death grip with people with whom they have little in common, rather than take the risk of setting out something different. Our current arcane party structure is to a large degree responsible for where we now are.
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
And the headbangers are still pushing no deal.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
And the headbangers are still pushing no deal.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
you still dont get it
these days YOU are the headbanger
No, just behaving in much the same way your headbangers did since 1974. Nothing wrong with opposition, challenge or most importantly scrutiny in a democracy Alanbrooke.
Some of us just don't fancy Liam Fox's vision of the future.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
To take an example from the military sphere, with which our hard experiences have made us all familiar, the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies – in this case armies of peace – under one supreme headquarters.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
Why not?
Exactly why not?
But you'll need to make a positive case for it. Countless times I've asked people to make a positive case to rejoin the EU, I've never received a reply beyond predictions of war.
One of the many tragedies of politics is that there rarely seems to be any reward for being proved right.
So the LibDems need more than Brexit. Their problem is that the public desires change at a time when, to them at least, the LDs don't appear to be offering any.
Nostalgia is a powerful force, and soon enough there may well be a significant block of voters nostalgic for the last couple of decades.
Brexit has given a massive boost to LD membership*, but these new members often are single issue members rather than over the broader range of policy. Opposition to Brexit becomes too dominant as a factor, and in 18 months becomes obsolete. I don't see Cable having the energy or guile to revive the party on a wider policy platform. He is also particularly tainted by student fees, which are going to grow as an issue by the time of the next election as more and more millenials are sucked into the quicksand of debt.
*The Tories have not published recent membership figures, but were dropping quickly 4 years ago. It is quite possible that both LDs and SNP are near equal in numbers.
That quicksand whereby they pay less tax than their elders did 30 years ago whether they had a degree or not? That quicksand?
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
Slave driver Meeks is terribly upset about that horrible Mr Lincoln.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
Glad you enjoyed Nolan's pro-Brexit allegory " Dunkirk ". Me too.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
To take an example from the military sphere, with which our hard experiences have made us all familiar, the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies – in this case armies of peace – under one supreme headquarters.
Yes, our everyday lives can be decided by Gadaffi, Mugabe and Putin.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
To take an example from the military sphere, with which our hard experiences have made us all familiar, the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies – in this case armies of peace – under one supreme headquarters.
Yes, our everyday lives can be decided by Gadaffi, Mugabe and Putin.
What could possibly go wrong sweet pea?
In case it's not clear, I've been quoting Winston Churchill.
Personally I don't think anything resembling a world government or federation is desirable or achievable within any of our lifetimes but may come about eventually. Europe is another matter, and what we have achieved in the EU already is a magnificent accomplishment that should make us proud, not fearful or melancholy.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
To take an example from the military sphere, with which our hard experiences have made us all familiar, the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies – in this case armies of peace – under one supreme headquarters.
Yes, our everyday lives can be decided by Gadaffi, Mugabe and Putin.
What could possibly go wrong sweet pea?
In case it's not clear, I've been quoting Winston Churchill.
Personally I don't think anything resembling a world government or federation is desirable or achievable within any of our lifetimes but may come about eventually. Europe is another matter, and what we have achieved in the EU already is a magnificent accomplishment that should make us proud, not fearful or melancholy.
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
And the headbangers are still pushing no deal.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
you still dont get it
these days YOU are the headbanger
No, just behaving in much the same way your headbangers did since 1974. Nothing wrong with opposition, challenge or most importantly scrutiny in a democracy Alanbrooke.
Some of us just don't fancy Liam Fox's vision of the future.
you rather assume people like myself and other leavers do which isnt the case.
a lot of us are rather bored with Torywars VII and just wish HMG would get on with building houses roads and funding education.
the IDS mirrortwin faction on PB just cant accept the country didnt like what they had to offer and cant ley it go.
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
Oh yeah I forgot, if we leave the EU there'll be war.
You're pathetic man.
It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.
Let's take this to its natural conclusion: are you proposing a world government?
To take an example from the military sphere, with which our hard experiences have made us all familiar, the design for world government might have followed the system of three or more groups of armies – in this case armies of peace – under one supreme headquarters.
Yes, our everyday lives can be decided by Gadaffi, Mugabe and Putin.
What could possibly go wrong sweet pea?
In case it's not clear, I've been quoting Winston Churchill.
Personally I don't think anything resembling a world government or federation is desirable or achievable within any of our lifetimes but may come about eventually. Europe is another matter, and what we have achieved in the EU already is a magnificent accomplishment that should make us proud, not fearful or melancholy.
Now we're getting there.
Please list all magnificent accomplishments the EU has "achieved".
Incidentally, if this is some sort of wind up I'm happy to admit the joke is on me. After all I'm debating on the internet with somebody who is espousing the benefits of world government.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Mrs May's lacklustre performance as PM is good for equality. No longer will the more ardent feminists be able to argue that the world would be better if women were in charge - for it turns out women are just as capable of incompetence as men!
I do wonder if this is a slight repeat of the We Must Stop This tendency that Blair and Gina Miller and so forth have had. By wasting their ammunition, money, media time etc on trying to deny a democratic result and decry it as unending woe, they're losing a one-off opportunity to try and channel the result in a way that they would see as better (namely, closer ties to the EU whilst still leaving).
If Blair had kept his Lisbon referendum promise, we wouldn't be invoking Article 50 because, in all likelihood, it wouldn't exist.
I think a lot will depend on what kind of Treaty comes out of the A50 process. I detect from the week's press outpourings it will contain more fudge than a Cornish sweet shop in high season and may well not stand up to a lot of scrutiny but will be presented as a triumph by both sides to their respective audiences.
Vince may be in his element if and when it comes to a forensic dissection of the detail and he may well see the anomalies before others on the Conservative side in particular.
May's problem will be to try and prevent an unholy alliance of those who want a stronger break from Europe and those who want to keep a closer relationship. In trying to please both sides, she may well finish up pleasing neither and facing real problems in the Commons.
Well, obviously. Whatever deal emerges will be presented by the government as a triumph, by Labour as a disaster, by the SNP as nae guid fer Scawtlun, by the EU as a triumph for the EU and nobody will give a monkey's how it is presented by the LibDems, frankly, whoever they are posing as that week - homophobic right wingers, ex-Marxists, whatever.
We already know what the reactions will be; what matters is the actual substance.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
Glad you enjoyed Nolan's pro-Brexit allegory " Dunkirk ". Me too.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
Your Petainiste / Vichy sympathies are notorious. How's the weather in Villefranche ?
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Please list all magnificent accomplishments the EU has "achieved".
Incidentally, if this is some sort of wind up I'm happy to admit the joke is on me. After all I'm debating on the internet with somebody who is espousing the benefits of world government.
The EU is itself an accomplishment, achieved by its member states and peoples. It is done by us, not to us.
The fact that we now have a sustainable political framework to work together to further our common interests should not be taken for granted, and we certainly shouldn't assume that we could have the same level of harmonious cooperation without it.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Yep
1.Leavers
2.Remainers
I think there is a degree of correlation but I also know a number of people who are very definitely Generous but who nevertheless voted Leave due imo to a misguided sense of 'patriotism'. So, a number of Generous Leavers no doubt; very few Selfish Remainers though.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Yep
1.Leavers
2.Remainers
I think there is a degree of correlation but I also know a number of people who are very definitely Generous but who nevertheless voted Leave due imo to a misguided sense of 'patriotism'. So, a number og Generous Leavers no doubt; very few Selfish Remainers though.
Please list all magnificent accomplishments the EU has "achieved".
Incidentally, if this is some sort of wind up I'm happy to admit the joke is on me. After all I'm debating on the internet with somebody who is espousing the benefits of world government.
The EU is itself an accomplishment, achieved by its member states and peoples. It is done by us, not to us.
The fact that we now have a sustainable political framework to work together to further our common interests should not be taken for granted, and we certainly shouldn't assume that we could have the same level of harmonious cooperation without it.
Just for clarification, this "sustainable political framework to work together", you do realise that was a massive factor in the referendum don't you?
The majority of us don't want laws imposed on us from Brussels.
Anyway, this is my last ever comment on Brexit on here, its all pointless and tedious.
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Or alternatively don't want to pay more tax because it will push them under the bus, don't forget a lot of private sector workers haven't seen any pay rises let alone the 1% cap that the public sector gets. Some of us already struggle to make the money last till the end of the month without having to fork over another 100 a month to HMRC so other people, who are paid just as much or more than us and with better pension schemes, can have a pay rise
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Yep
1.Leavers
2.Remainers
I think there is a degree of correlation but I also know a number of people who are very definitely Generous but who nevertheless voted Leave due imo to a misguided sense of 'patriotism'. So, a number of Generous Leavers no doubt; very few Selfish Remainers though.
No. I know several selfish Remainers.
They swallowed project fear hook, line and Osborne.
Selfishness was, in fact, the basis of the Remain campaign. Cheap flights and sod those who have to compete for low wages and scarce public services.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Most people are motivated by a mix of both self-interest and altruism.
It's a big mistake to assume that one's own faction is virtuous and the opposing faction is vicious.
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I don't have data to back this up, but I doubt you have to data to back up your assertions) medical advances are allowing us to diagnose conditions earlier. In fact, when routine personalised lifetime biometrics come in (which I expect them to do within a decade) many conditions will be picked up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
LOL, Professor Jessop puts plucky amateur in his place, even admits he is making up the bollox he posts in his first words and then pontificates that Lucky is making things up, post of the day for sure.
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calline calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge etc.
If you're happy to align yourself with posters that precisely matched
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy. Whatever the theoretical merits of states' rights, the reality of the motivations for the fight will irredeemably taint the cause and shame its advocates.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Most people are motivated by a mix of both self-interest and altruism.
It's a big mistake to assume that one's own faction is virtuous and the opposing faction is vicious.
way off track Mr F
the Brexit split is
1. really clever people 2. thickos
the hard part is to work out why 2 are smarter than 1
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calline calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge etc.
If you're happy to align yourself with posters that precisely matched
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy. Whatever the theoretical merits of states' rights, the reality of the motivations for the fight will irredeemably taint the cause and shame its advocates.
Has the EU impoverished its poorer parts at the expense of its richer?
I struggle to believe that it is has, with the exception of the economic damage the Euro has wrought on Greece and Cyprus.
Let's look at all the countries that have joined the EU since Britain joined. (With the exception of Austria, Sweden and Finland, these were all poorer than the EU average when the joined.) If you look at GDP per head compared to Germany (which is the richest of the large EU countries), then you see a significant narrowing.
Most poorer countries - Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Czech Republic - have dramatically narrowed the gap with Germany. Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, have not (albeit these are also over much shorter time horizons). On the other hand, the damage done to Greece and Cyprus has been very significant.
If you compare those countries in Eastern Europe that joined the EU with those that did not, then the difference is much more stark. All of the European parts of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that have not joined the EU have gone backwards relative to Germany. Russia itself has done OK, but that's largely due to being a massive commodity exporter. An option that was not available to - say - Estonia.
(Note to add: these numbers include combined East and West Germany, and therefore show German GDP per capita growing quicker than it might. It might be worth rerunning this with France or the Netherlands to get slightly more comparable numbers.)
The transformation of Eastern Europe since the wall came down is one of the major achievements of our age; membership of the EU and the financial and advisory support it has provided have been critical. All of Europe including ourselves have benefited from this; a case study in how aid to developing regions is ultimately in the common good.
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Or alternatively don't want to pay more tax because it will push them under the bus, don't forget a lot of private sector workers haven't seen any pay rises let alone the 1% cap that the public sector gets. Some of us already struggle to make the money last till the end of the month without having to fork over another 100 a month to HMRC so other people, who are paid just as much or more than us and with better pension schemes, can have a pay rise
Headlong charge to the bottom it is then? I'm not alright Jack, but that's fine as long as you aren't either. Austerity in a nutshell. The elite are pissing themselves at it.
I am still astonished that the LDs agreed to the tuition fees increase policy. It was so obviously going to have disastrous consequences for them in both the short and long term. Why on earth didn't they get a compromise policy (e.g. freeze them) into the coalition agreement?
You're not wrong, my friend. As an LD and while I have great respect for Nick Clegg who I think has comported himself well since 2015 (and looks a lot better for not being in Government or Parliament), he made two disastrous mistakes possibly as a result of his own hubris (politicians do that a lot, just ask Mrs May).
Tuition fees was just awful - had we argued against them and lost that on the floor of the Commons, we could have said to the NUS and others "well, we tried" but to turn round and campaign FOR them was unbelievably bad. Could you imagine a Conservative arguing for cutting taxes and then turning round and supporting a 2p rise in income tax ? I remember Norman Lamont saying "no VAT on fuel" and then introducing it. It killed the Conservatives at the 1993-95 local elections.
The second disaster was the AV referendum - AV has never been LD party policy (STV is the preferred proportional option). AV is in some respects worse than FPTP but as the Conservatives wouldn't even put STV on the ballot paper, Nick felt he had to go back to the Party with something on constitutional reform (he didn't). Could the Conservatives have supported a more proportional system for English local elections (proportional systems exist in Northern Ireland, Scotland and London) and kept FPTP for Westminster ? I think there was a deal to be done there and a wiser leader might have settled for that.
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Or alternatively don't want to pay more tax because it will push them under the bus, don't forget a lot of private sector workers haven't seen any pay rises let alone the 1% cap that the public sector gets. Some of us already struggle to make the money last till the end of the month without having to fork over another 100 a month to HMRC so other people, who are paid just as much or more than us and with better pension schemes, can have a pay rise
That's why taxes need to be progressive Pagan. But sadly, the rich have the most influence and the rich who are also selfish do their damnedest to make sure they don't pay more taxes.
If you are really struggling to that extent I would never advocate you paying more tax; but there are plenty (me included) who could easily pay a bit more to support public services AND reduce the deficit.
The clock is ticking. At some point very soon you will need to choose between the wrong deal or no deal.
And the headbangers are still pushing no deal.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
Has the EU impoverished its poorer parts at the expense of its richer?
I struggle to believe that it is has, with the exception of the economic damage the Euro has wrought on Greece and Cyprus.
Let's look at all the countries that have joined the EU since Britain joined. (With the exception of Austria, Sweden and Finland, these were all poorer than the EU average when the joined.) If you look at GDP per head compared to Germany (which is the richest of the large EU countries), then you see a significant narrowing.
Most poorer countries - Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Czech Republic - have dramatically narrowed the gap with Germany. Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, have not (albeit these are also over much shorter time horizons). On the other hand, the damage done to Greece and Cyprus has been very significant.
If you compare those countries in Eastern Europe that joined the EU with those that did not, then the difference is much more stark. All of the European parts of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that have not joined the EU have gone backwards relative to Germany. Russia itself has done OK, but that's largely due to being a massive commodity exporter. An option that was not available to - say - Estonia.
(Note to add: these numbers include combined East and West Germany, and therefore show German GDP per capita growing quicker than it might. It might be worth rerunning this with France or the Netherlands to get slightly more comparable numbers.)
The transformation of Eastern Europe since the wall came down is one of the major achievements of our age; membership of the EU and the financial and advisory support it has provided have been critical. All of Europe including ourselves have benefited from this; a case study in how aid to developing regions is ultimately in the common good.
weve only seen the first part of the story
the baltic states have seen drastic population reduction
at some point the demographics of exporting your best and most able will catch them up
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
Most people are motivated by a mix of both self-interest and altruism.
It's a big mistake to assume that one's own faction is virtuous and the opposing faction is vicious.
way off track Mr F
the Brexit split is
1. really clever people 2. thickos
the hard part is to work out why 2 are smarter than 1
Remainers make much of the education gap between those that voted remain and those that voted leave implying its the intelligent vs the thick.
They seem to not notice the same is true when you look at who voted for Corbyn.who won lots of votes from the constituency of remain voters, the young with degrees, public sector workers and the "liberal" middle classes
Does make you ponder if this so called intelligence gap is all its cracked up to be
We're living less long because we're unhealthy. Diseases like cancer are hitting us sooner than ever before. This seems to have overtaken the opposing trend of medical advances helping us dodge death for longer.
I think that's utterly and totally wrong. IMO (and I don't have data to back this up, but I doubt you have to data to back up your assertions) medical advances are allowing us to diagnose conditions earlier. In fact, when routine personalised lifetime biometrics come in (which I expect them to do within a decade) many conditions will be picked up almost instantaneously.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
LOL, Professor Jessop puts plucky amateur in his place, even admits he is making up the bollox he posts in his first words and then pontificates that Lucky is making things up, post of the day for sure.
Thanks for the promotion, Eliza. I don't have a degree, yet alone a Professorship!
It's called having an opinion. I'll be asking the first-year undergrads who program you to teach you the concept. That is, when they awaken from their drunken stupour.
I do wonder if this is a slight repeat of the We Must Stop This tendency that Blair and Gina Miller and so forth have had. By wasting their ammunition, money, media time etc on trying to deny a democratic result and decry it as unending woe, they're losing a one-off opportunity to try and channel the result in a way that they would see as better (namely, closer ties to the EU whilst still leaving).
If Blair had kept his Lisbon referendum promise, we wouldn't be invoking Article 50 because, in all likelihood, it wouldn't exist.
I think a lot will depend on what kind of Treaty comes out of the A50 process. I detect from the week's press outpourings it will contain more fudge than a Cornish sweet shop in high season and may well not stand up to a lot of scrutiny but will be presented as a triumph by both sides to their respective audiences.
Vince may be in his element if and when it comes to a forensic dissection of the detail and he may well see the anomalies before others on the Conservative side in particular.
May's problem will be to try and prevent an unholy alliance of those who want a stronger break from Europe and those who want to keep a closer relationship. In trying to please both sides, she may well finish up pleasing neither and facing real problems in the Commons.
Well, obviously. Whatever deal emerges will be presented by the government as a triumph, by Labour as a disaster, by the SNP as nae guid fer Scawtlun, by the EU as a triumph for the EU and nobody will give a monkey's how it is presented by the LibDems, frankly, whoever they are posing as that week - homophobic right wingers, ex-Marxists, whatever.
We already know what the reactions will be; what matters is the actual substance.
Sad tw**, you make think you are witty but it is by half.
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calline calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge etc.
If you're happy to align yourself with posters that precisely matched
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy. Whatever the theoretical merits of states' rights, the reality of the motivations for the fight will irredeemably taint the cause and shame its advocates.
You glory in the xenophobic Brexit that you have helped to secure. I'm unsurprised you can't understand why it disgusts others.
You're disgusted that there are a lot of people concerned by some of the effects of completely uncontrolled immigration from much poorer countries in the EU?
Get help.
I'm disgusted that people who have no interest in the problems that migration causes other than as a lever to secure Brexit are prepared to whip up xenophobia in order to secure that goal, using untruths and imagery designed to whip up racial tensions.
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
There's no point in arguing with some people AM. I increasingly conclude that there are two broad swathes of people:
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
I've met many people who loudly say they'd like to pay more taxes for better public services.
I always explain how easy it is for them to do so and even offer to drive them at a time of their choosing to the local tax office or hospital so that they can do so.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
Glad you enjoyed Nolan's pro-Brexit allegory " Dunkirk ". Me too.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
'Only military heros being the French'. What about the 51st Highlanders and the Guards in Calais?
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others? It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
it's the remainer problem, they cant accept a majority of the people said the EU doesnt work for us.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
I'd vote leave tomorrow,what's there to be ashamed of ?
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calline calling from the self righteous.
Bang on - +1
The xenophobes and their fellow travellers are queuing up to soothe their consciences, I see.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge etc.
If you're happy to align yourself with posters that precisely matched
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy. Whatever the theoretical merits of states' rights, the reality of the motivations for the fight will irredeemably taint the cause and shame its advocates.
This is going to be a real problem for the Government and indeed all parties. A big part of the LEAVE campaign was about "taking back control" and an integral part of that was giving our Government the right to decide who should be able to come and reside in this country.
The subtext to that was clearly that the British Government, on the day we left the EU, would instate a new immigration policy making the citizens of the EU subject to the same restrictions as citizens from the US and other countries.
To me, that's fair, a single transparent and fair migration policy allowing us to bring in the people we need either with the skills or with the ability to learn from our educational system. That's what migration should be about - giving the genuine refugee a chance to find a place of safety, bringing in the skill sets we need and giving an opportunity to learn from us and take the skills back to their own countries to improve the lot of their peoples.
The social and community effects of the open door Single Market migration policy are not the same everywhere but in some areas have been considerable and understandably there are those who want to see that flow reduced or even stopped entirely (and indeed reversed).
Has the EU impoverished its poorer parts at the expense of its richer?
I struggle to believe that it is has, with the exception of the economic damage the Euro has wrought on Greece and Cyprus.
Let's look at all the countries that have joined the EU since Britain joined. (With the exception of Austria, Sweden and Finland, these were all poorer than the EU average when the joined.) If you look at GDP per head compared to Germany (which is the richest of the large EU countries), then you see a significant narrowing.
Bulgaria 18% 18%
Poland 20% 30% Portugal 20% 47% Romania 20% 23% Slovakia 31% 39% Slovenia 51% 51% Spain 35% 63%
Most poorer countries - Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Czech Republic - have dramatically narrowed the gap with Germany. Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, have not (albeit these are also over much shorter time horizons). On the other hand, the damage done to Greece and Cyprus has been very significant.
If you compare those countries in Eastern Europe that joined the EU with those that did not, then the difference is much more stark. All of the European parts of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that have not joined the EU have gone backwards relative to Germany. Russia itself has done OK, but that's largely due to being a massive commodity exporter. An option that was not available to - say - Estonia.
(Note to add: these numbers include combined East and West Germany, and therefore show German GDP per capita growing quicker than it might. It might be worth rerunning this with France or the Netherlands to get slightly more comparable numbers.)
The transformation of Eastern Europe since the wall came down is one of the major achievements of our age; membership of the EU and the financial and advisory support it has provided have been critical. All of Europe including ourselves have benefited from this; a case study in how aid to developing regions is ultimately in the common good.
weve only seen the first part of the story
the baltic states have seen drastic population reduction
at some point the demographics of exporting your best and most able will catch them up
They are already worrying about this 'brain drain' - which might indeed offer the possibility of a mutually agreeable solution on freedom of movement. My guess is that Blair picked up some of the early thinking about this on his recent visit.
Economic progress does of course ultimately mean the problem is self-solving. My last visit to Western Poland was the first time that I thought it looked no less prosperous than much of Southern Europe.
I'm surprised that the LDs are happy to be a single issue party.
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
Okay, let's pick apart THIS incoherent nonsense.
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
A good post if a strange one from someone who voted 'Leave'. As your vote proves there must be dozens of reasons why people voted 'Leave'. If the 'Heinz 57' applied to 'Leaving' why wouldn't it also apply to our rejoining? Do you think it would be healthy to continue this into the next millenium?
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
Glad you enjoyed Nolan's pro-Brexit allegory " Dunkirk ". Me too.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
Have to agree Roger , absolutely brilliant film. Those Tories in the boat trying to chuck out johnny foreigner most certainly prove your viewpoint.
More an age thing. Schools today are mixed in every sort of way. The old don't like foreigners because in their formative years they hardly met any. Same reason rural areas produce more Leavers than the cities.
In ten years time this vote will not only seem calamitous it'll also seem shameful
More an age thing. Schools today are mixed in every sort of way. The old don't like foreigners because in their formative years they hardly met any. Same reason rural areas produce more Leavers than the cities.
42 was the tipping point, above which, each age cohort favoured Brexit over Remain. People in their forties are familiar with foreigners.
More an age thing. Schools today are mixed in every sort of way. The old don't like foreigners because in their formative years they hardly met any. Same reason rural areas produce more Leavers than the cities.
42 was the tipping point, above which, each age cohort favoured Brexit over Remain. People in their forties are familiar with foreigners.
More an age thing. Schools today are mixed in every sort of way. The old don't like foreigners because in their formative years they hardly met any. Same reason rural areas produce more Leavers than the cities.
In ten years time this vote will not only seem calamitous it'll also seem shameful
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten. Those who celebrate mass immigration and how London's economy prospers on the back of it, look away now
Comments
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/888680013192613888
"What you're telling me is I have a choice between a bad deal and no deal - I'd prefer a choice between a bad deal and a chance to go back and get a better deal. "
How long does this iteration go on for? If the EU want to play hard ball because of internal politics, they will.
By choosing Juncker and Barnier, they are trying that.
I agree with Mr Royale, your post he selected was very reasonable. But we have to live with the art of the possible.
The subtext to that was clearly that the British Government, on the day we left the EU, would instate a new immigration policy making the citizens of the EU subject to the same restrictions as citizens from the US and other countries.
To me, that's fair, a single transparent and fair migration policy allowing us to bring in the people we need either with the skills or with the ability to learn from our educational system. That's what migration should be about - giving the genuine refugee a chance to find a place of safety, bringing in the skill sets we need and giving an opportunity to learn from us and take the skills back to their own countries to improve the lot of their peoples.
The social and community effects of the open door Single Market migration policy are not the same everywhere but in some areas have been considerable and understandably there are those who want to see that flow reduced or even stopped entirely (and indeed reversed).
We shall only save ourselves from the perils which draw near by forgetting the hatreds of the past, by letting national rancours and revenges die, by progressively effacing frontiers and barriers which aggravate and congeal our divisions, and by rejoicing together in that glorious treasure of literature, of romance, of ethics, of thought and toleration belonging to all, which is the true inheritance of Europe, the expression of its genius and honour, but which by our quarrels, our follies, by our fearful wars and the cruel and awful deeds that spring from war and tyrants, we have almost cast away.
The only solution is to ask the EU to delay our leaving for say five years. The public will have had a glimpse of the chaos of this one and will have had enough time and debate to focus on what changing our governance really means. The pros and cons could be decided amongst ourselves without the pressure of time.
You're pathetic man.
The opportunities for the LibDems tend to come along when both main parties adopt a similar position on an issue, leaving the other side unchampioned (Iraq being the obvious example), or where an issue is emerging or growing in importance and being more nimble they can stake out the ground first (for many years environmentalism was a good example). Brexit looked like an example of the former, that has so far not paid any divided, and should sensibly be broadened into internationalism as someone suggests downthread. Drugs policy is an example of the latter. The trouble with the latter is that adopting positions early rarely appeals to more than a small minority. And, by the time you are proved right, either everyone has forgotten that you were first, or cares more about something else.
There, I said it :}
Were there complaints from native workers in America when rich people started using slaves instead?
Get help.
Without having done the research, my instinct is that the Tories would mostly win on economic issues (with a few Labour tweaks such as the minimum wage), with the LibDems winning on most social and environmental issues as well as some political stuff like devolution. Labour has come to support much of the social stuff, but much of it still runs counter to the instincts of its supporters and in most cases it was Liberal policy years earlier.
Labour's socialist thinking has influenced actual policy the least over my adult lifetime IMO, despite a fair innings in government, which is why Corbyn is now both so radical and, to some, threatening.
A year on, with all of the hurdles passed with ease, their opponents crushed and the clock ticking, it's curious to find that Brexiteers are still the angriest "winners" in history
As I've said to Roger, I'd rather wait for the right deal than rush out of the EU on the basis of the wrong deal or no deal.
It's more complex than that of course.
Conservative politicians know that sounding "tough" on Europe doesn't do them any harm electorally whether that electorate is the British public or the Conservative parliamentary party. Boris's absurd comments earlier in the week will be meat and drink to the Daily Mail brigade and reminds everyone he is still a contender when May goes.
So we have the superficial bellicosity from all sides but below the surface (I suspect) the officials are getting on rather better. Of course, the EU is disappointed at our departure but it's more sorrow than anger. They'll go on without us but understandably they don't want our exit to be so "easy" as to be a signal. "Ne pas enourager les autres" would be the motto for the EU approach so we will have to take some lumps and we won't get everything we want and that's fine and the more stupid politicians will run around and castigate the EU.
However, both sides know they will still need to co-exist so something will be cobbled together which, like all good agreements, won't please anyone. May (or whoever) will have the problem of keeping the ardent "let's get out of the EU at all costs" brigade along with the " we don't really want to go but we have to" brigade onside as she takes the treaty through the Commons.
At heart, this has been a multi-generational struggle for the souls of both the Conservative and Labour parties - both have had spells of being the EU's biggest fans and biggest detractors and now we have to decide on our future relationship with them and both parties have to decide where they really want to be.
Although we are outnumbered a bit on PB, there is quite a wide spread of opinion, which keeps the site interesting for me. I like being challenged and finding I am not always right about everything (just 99% right
Has the EU impoverished its poorer parts at the expense of its richer?
I struggle to believe that it is has, with the exception of the economic damage the Euro has wrought on Greece and Cyprus.
Let's look at all the countries that have joined the EU since Britain joined. (With the exception of Austria, Sweden and Finland, these were all poorer than the EU average when the joined.) If you look at GDP per head compared to Germany (which is the richest of the large EU countries), then you see a significant narrowing. Most poorer countries - Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Czech Republic - have dramatically narrowed the gap with Germany. Others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, have not (albeit these are also over much shorter time horizons). On the other hand, the damage done to Greece and Cyprus has been very significant.
If you compare those countries in Eastern Europe that joined the EU with those that did not, then the difference is much more stark. All of the European parts of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that have not joined the EU have gone backwards relative to Germany. Russia itself has done OK, but that's largely due to being a massive commodity exporter. An option that was not available to - say - Estonia.
(Note to add: these numbers include combined East and West Germany, and therefore show German GDP per capita growing quicker than it might. It might be worth rerunning this with France or the Netherlands to get slightly more comparable numbers.)
And I'm disgusted at the tortured way in which they now pretend that they didn't matter.
these days YOU are the headbanger
Some of us just don't fancy Liam Fox's vision of the future.
What a shame we do not have one.
Cable is Old Labour. He was also perhaps the worst anti-business secretary we have ever had.
But you'll need to make a positive case for it. Countless times I've asked people to make a positive case to rejoin the EU, I've never received a reply beyond predictions of war.
Some quicksand. Some debt.
"Pro-Brexit allegory"? I described it as a parable for Brexit. A completely shambolic exit from Europe dreamed up by people without a clue. More than a smattering of xenophobia when the ignorant squaddies tried to lighten the boat by attacking the foreigner and the only military heroes being the French who manned the barricades when the British were in abject retreat.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
What could possibly go wrong sweet pea?
Personally I don't think anything resembling a world government or federation is desirable or achievable within any of our lifetimes but may come about eventually. Europe is another matter, and what we have achieved in the EU already is a magnificent accomplishment that should make us proud, not fearful or melancholy.
1. Selfish (don't want to pay taxes or help others, don't want public servants to get pay rises, don't want immigrants sharing their good fortune, don't see why we whould give foreign aid, don't like people who are 'not like us' etc.)
2. Generous (want to help others wherever possible, proud to pay taxes to support good public services, care about the disadvantaged in society and the world, want a world where everyone can live a happy life, not just 'us and ours', etc...)
Very hard to change people from one group to another.
a lot of us are rather bored with Torywars VII and just wish HMG would get on with building houses roads and funding education.
the IDS mirrortwin faction on PB just cant accept the country didnt like what they had to offer and cant ley it go.
two cheeks one arse.
Please list all magnificent accomplishments the EU has "achieved".
Incidentally, if this is some sort of wind up I'm happy to admit the joke is on me. After all I'm debating on the internet with somebody who is espousing the benefits of world government.
1.Leavers
2.Remainers
We already know what the reactions will be; what matters is the actual substance.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
Your Petainiste / Vichy sympathies are notorious. How's the weather in Villefranche ?
3. Virtue Signallers
The fact that we now have a sustainable political framework to work together to further our common interests should not be taken for granted, and we certainly shouldn't assume that we could have the same level of harmonious cooperation without it.
The majority of us don't want laws imposed on us from Brussels.
Anyway, this is my last ever comment on Brexit on here, its all pointless and tedious.
Camille Paglia once said that in a world controlled by women, we'd still be living in grass huts.
That makes her a lesbian, feminist, male chauvinist.
Beat that.
They swallowed project fear hook, line and Osborne.
Selfishness was, in fact, the basis of the Remain campaign. Cheap flights and sod those who have to compete for low wages and scarce public services.
It's a big mistake to assume that one's own faction is virtuous and the opposing faction is vicious.
the Brexit split is
1. really clever people
2. thickos
the hard part is to work out why 2 are smarter than 1
If you are really struggling to that extent I would never advocate you paying more tax; but there are plenty (me included) who could easily pay a bit more to support public services AND reduce the deficit.
the baltic states have seen drastic population reduction
at some point the demographics of exporting your best and most able will catch them up
Could still be June 23rd 2016...
They seem to not notice the same is true when you look at who voted for Corbyn.who won lots of votes from the constituency of remain voters, the young with degrees, public sector workers and the "liberal" middle classes
Does make you ponder if this so called intelligence gap is all its cracked up to be
It's called having an opinion. I'll be asking the first-year undergrads who program you to teach you the concept. That is, when they awaken from their drunken stupour.
I always explain how easy it is for them to do so and even offer to drive them at a time of their choosing to the local tax office or hospital so that they can do so.
I've never been taken up on the offer.
I backed, with a tiny sum, at 5.2.
Intriguing to consider the circuit. Most corners are mid-speed. I think he has a decent shot.
Edited extra bit: also, 4 on Ladbrokes each way (third the odds for top 2) looks interesting.
'Only military heros being the French'. What about the 51st Highlanders and the Guards in Calais?
Independence Day & Groundhog Day
https://www.thelocal.de/20170717/one-in-three-bavarians-want-independence-from-germany-poll-shows-bavaria
Economic progress does of course ultimately mean the problem is self-solving. My last visit to Western Poland was the first time that I thought it looked no less prosperous than much of Southern Europe.
As a film though it was brilliant. A masterclass in film making.
Have to agree Roger , absolutely brilliant film. Those Tories in the boat trying to chuck out johnny foreigner most certainly prove your viewpoint.
More an age thing. Schools today are mixed in every sort of way. The old don't like foreigners because in their formative years they hardly met any. Same reason rural areas produce more Leavers than the cities.
In ten years time this vote will not only seem calamitous it'll also seem shameful
In 80 years time, kids alive today will be bine asked "whose side were you on in the Brexit wars great grandpa?"... and PB will still be debating it!
What do you think to the new SNP leader at Westminster?
https://tinyurl.com/yd4tfwfj
This is a play wot a friend wrote on the subject.
https://tinyurl.com/y8cfxyah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygLy02y7_n8
Of course most of the world consists of the third world.
So isn't it inevitable that 'world city' London increasingly has the attributes of a third world city.